----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/43686/#review119581 -----------------------------------------------------------
Patch looks great! Reviews applied: [43684, 43685, 43686] Passed command: export OS='ubuntu:14.04' CONFIGURATION='--verbose' COMPILER='gcc' ENVIRONMENT='GLOG_v=1 MESOS_VERBOSE=1'; ./support/docker_build.sh - Mesos ReviewBot On Feb. 18, 2016, 12:04 a.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/43686/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Feb. 18, 2016, 12:04 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Joris Van Remoortere and Michael Park. > > > Bugs: MESOS-4691 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-4691 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > For the particular workload exercised by the benchmark, this suggests that > adding a 12-element label to a resource slows down allocation by about 5% on > my > local machine. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp > 990f3723d52dfeaa19d5eb0603c0fc7eb2b362c7 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/43686/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > FYI, results on my laptop: > > _Original benchmark (unlabeled resources)_ > [ RUN ] HierarchicalAllocator_BENCHMARK_Test.DeclineOffers > Using 2000 slaves and 200 frameworks > round 0 allocate took 2.028175secs to make 200 offers > round 1 allocate took 2.006791secs to make 200 offers > round 2 allocate took 2.033723secs to make 200 offers > round 3 allocate took 2.017508secs to make 200 offers > round 4 allocate took 2.037235secs to make 200 offers > round 5 allocate took 2.054095secs to make 200 offers > round 6 allocate took 2.048884secs to make 200 offers > round 7 allocate took 2.044252secs to make 200 offers > round 8 allocate took 2.060256secs to make 200 offers > round 9 allocate took 2.07121secs to make 200 offers > round 10 allocate took 2.066261secs to make 200 offers > round 11 allocate took 2.034805secs to make 200 offers > round 12 allocate took 2.053705secs to make 200 offers > round 13 allocate took 2.042106secs to make 200 offers > round 14 allocate took 2.082704secs to make 200 offers > > _New benchmark (two labeled resources with different labels)_ > [ RUN ] HierarchicalAllocator_BENCHMARK_Test.ResourceLabels > Using 2000 slaves and 200 frameworks > round 0 allocate took 2.128709secs to make 200 offers > round 1 allocate took 2.188029secs to make 200 offers > round 2 allocate took 2.145937secs to make 200 offers > round 3 allocate took 2.171442secs to make 200 offers > round 4 allocate took 2.153106secs to make 200 offers > round 5 allocate took 2.151484secs to make 200 offers > round 6 allocate took 2.136182secs to make 200 offers > round 7 allocate took 2.152105secs to make 200 offers > round 8 allocate took 2.187842secs to make 200 offers > round 9 allocate took 2.13839secs to make 200 offers > round 10 allocate took 2.237216secs to make 200 offers > round 11 allocate took 2.164702secs to make 200 offers > round 12 allocate took 2.143296secs to make 200 offers > round 13 allocate took 2.198839secs to make 200 offers > round 14 allocate took 2.179931secs to make 200 offers > > For fun, I tried running the benchmark with the modified equality operator > for `Labels` that uses `unordered_multiset` to produce the correct results > for labels that contain duplicates: > > [ RUN ] HierarchicalAllocator_BENCHMARK_Test.ResourceLabels > Using 2000 slaves and 200 frameworks > round 0 allocate took 2.190051secs to make 200 offers > round 1 allocate took 2.169332secs to make 200 offers > round 2 allocate took 2.156235secs to make 200 offers > round 3 allocate took 2.15506secs to make 200 offers > round 4 allocate took 2.133953secs to make 200 offers > round 5 allocate took 2.18325secs to make 200 offers > round 6 allocate took 2.164478secs to make 200 offers > round 7 allocate took 2.192077secs to make 200 offers > round 8 allocate took 2.14688secs to make 200 offers > round 9 allocate took 2.172333secs to make 200 offers > round 10 allocate took 2.199906secs to make 200 offers > round 11 allocate took 2.16384secs to make 200 offers > round 12 allocate took 2.200181secs to make 200 offers > round 13 allocate took 2.138463secs to make 200 offers > round 14 allocate took 2.184699secs to make 200 offers > > > Thanks, > > Neil Conway > >
